Canada in 2003

Originally published in the Britannica Book of the Year. Presented as archival content. Learn more.

This article was originally published in the Britannica Book of the Year, an annual print publication that
provides an overview of the year’s most-notable people and events.
Unlike most articles on Britannica.com, Book of the Year articles are not reviewed and revised after their initial publication.
Rather, they are presented on the site as archival content, intended for historical reference only.

Canadians in 2003 grappled with the unforeseen consequences of disease affecting both humans and animals. SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), imported from Asia, caused over 40 deaths in Toronto, the country’s financial centre. (SeeHealth and Disease:Special Report.) In Alberta an outbreak of “mad cow” disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]) closed international markets to Canadian beef.

On the political front, the major parties moved to select new leaders. The governing Liberal Party replaced its leader, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who initially had announced that he would step down in February 2004. He spent the year shepherding new legislation, intended to define his “legacy.” The contest to succeed him proved to be a tepid affair. Paul Martin (seeBiographies), former minister of finance, had worked relentlessly to build up support within the party. One by one, cabinet colleagues who had been expected to challenge him dropped from the race. The last to withdraw was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance John Manley, Chrétien’s favoured successor. Sheila Copps, minister of Canadian heritage, representing the left-of-centre wing of the party, remained Martin’s only opponent. A public opinion poll in late August showed that 49% of Canadians favoured Martin as the country’s next prime minister. At the leadership convention held in Toronto on November 14, Martin gained the support of 94% of the delegates. Chrétien stepped down as prime minister on December 12, following his attendance at a Commonwealth heads of government conference in Nigeria. In the 301-seat House of Commons, the Liberals held 171 seats, a comfortable majority.

The Liberal Party’s historic rival, the Progressive Conservative Party (PCP), changed its leader at the end of May, replacing former prime minister Joe Clark with a younger figure. Peter MacKay, 37, an MP from Nova Scotia, won the leadership on the fourth ballot. Although the PCP held only 15 seats in the Commons, MacKay vacillated on cooperation with the Western-based conservative party, the Canadian Alliance, which held 63 seats. During the summer, discussions began between MacKay and Stephen Harper, leader of the Alliance. On October 14 the two struck a deal for the merger of their parties, which took place in December after delegates of both parties had voted to approve the merger. Canada’s socialist party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), also chose a new leader—Jack Layton, a community activist from Toronto. Although not an MP, Layton had served since 1982 on the Toronto City Council. He was expected to appeal to urban voters, once a strong constituency for the NDP, which held only 14 seats in the Commons. The separatist Bloc Québécois lost ground in Quebec. At the end of 2003 it held 34 seats from the province, but it was expected to suffer losses at the next general election. There were also four independents in the Commons.

Canada’s prized system of public health care received new impetus in 2003. In operation for almost 40 years, the plan was funded jointly by the provincial and federal governments. Delivery, however, was in the hands of the provinces. It was universally accessible, portable across Canada, and comprehensive in scope. In November 2002 a commission of inquiry headed by Roy Romanow, a former premier of Saskatchewan, had issued a report in which it recommended changes to strengthen the health system and enlarge the system’s reach. Romanow urged a massive transfer of additional funds from Ottawa to the provinces, designed to replace cutbacks carried out by the Liberal government. The commission recommended increased assistance for home care, expansion of the existing drug plan, and the purchase of additional diagnostic equipment. Romanow advocated a federal-provincial health council as a watchdog to report to Canadians. Above all, he insisted that the system remain the responsibility of the state and that the intrusion of private medicine, favourably considered in some provinces, be denied. During 12 hours of bargaining in the capital on Feb. 5, 2003, Prime Minister Chrétien and the premiers of the 10 provinces and 3 territories closely examined the Romanow report. The premiers established a united front and insisted that large amounts of additional funds be transferred to the political units actually delivering health services. The federal government offered funding of Can$34.8 billion (Can$1 = about U.S.$1.35) over the next five years. Priorities for the use of this money would be primary health care, drug coverage, and diagnostic equipment. The provinces complained that much of this money was already in the system and that new funding would not be at the levels recommended by Romanow. In the end the federal offer was grudgingly accepted. Meanwhile, Americans were buying prescription drugs in Canada at lower prices than they would pay at home. (SeeSidebar.)

Prime Minister Chrétien’s introduced a measure in January banning contributions to political parties from corporations and unions. Donations could still be made, up to a maximum of Can$1,000, to individual candidates. Corporation and union funding would be replaced by government subsidies. These grants were to be based on the success of parties in past elections. The subsidy would amount to about Can$1.75 for each vote cast. The bill passed easily, 172–62, on June 11. The Chrétien government brought forward another controversial subject for legislation—a change in the definition of marriage. On June 10 the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the current definition, a union between a man and a woman, contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that same-sex marriages should be permitted immediately. On June 17 the government announced that it would introduce a new marriage law while at the same time asking the Supreme Court to review its constitutionality. Churches would be free to retain their own practices. The Supreme Court decision was not expected before April 2004, at which time official debate could begin.

Marijuana was another subject of debate. In May the government introduced a measure to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. U.S. officials expressed concern over this initiative, fearing that it would hinder antidrug measures in their country. Later the bill was withdrawn, though the government indicated that it would be reintroduced in 2004. In July the government announced a plan to make marijuana available to about 600 registered individuals to relieve pain. The drug would be distributed by physicians. The marijuana was supplied by a government facility in an abandoned mine in northern Manitoba. U.S. authorities and many Canadian physicians were unhappy with the distribution scheme. On December 23 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that “it is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy.”

After several years of leading the Group of Eight industrialized nations in economic performance, the Canadian economy faltered in the second quarter of 2003. A growth rate that had been predicted at 3.2% for the year was revised downward at the end of June to 2.2%. A range of economic indicators showed signs of trouble. A principal contributor to the decline was the continued weakness of the U.S. economy, Canada’s main export market. Another was the rising value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its U.S. counterpart, which impacted the trade in automobiles and parts moving from Canada to the U.S.

Two causes for the contraction in economic activity could not have been anticipated. One was the outbreak of SARS, which had an adverse economic impact on many parts of the country and especially on Toronto. On April 23 the World Health Organization issued a travel advisory for Toronto, but the city’s officer of medical health, Sheela Basrur (seeBiographies), was instrumental in having the advisory lifted a week later. The other was the appearance of BSE in North America, which created havoc in the beef industry.

On February 18 Manley delivered the Chrétien administration’s final budget. Since the Chrétien government assumed office in 1993, the budgets had contained a spate of cost-cutting measures, but his 2003 budget was dominated by spending. Expenditures rose 11% over those in the 2002 budget. Federal contributions to health care, some already announced, were scheduled to increase by Can$35 billion over the next five years. Foreign aid, half to Africa, was markedly increased, as was assistance to improve the health of Aboriginals. Funding was also put aside to fulfill pledges made under the Kyoto Protocol to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. Defense spending was given its largest increase of the Chrétien years. There were no new taxes, however, and tax cuts were limited to small businesses. Despite high expenditures, the budget remained balanced for the sixth year in succession. A surplus of Can$4 billion was predicted for fiscal year 2003–04, and reduction of the debt continued.

Foreign Affairs

Strains appeared in the close relationship with the United States as Canada made it clear that it would not participate in the war against Iraq without prior United Nations (UN) approval. On February 12 the minister of defense, John McCallum, stated that Canada would provide a force to help maintain internal security in Afghanistan, which, in view of Ottawa’s limited military capacity, meant that there would be no combat force available for a war in Iraq. At the UN, Canada sought support for a resolution that would set a deadline for the UN inspectors’ report on the status of Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. (SeeMilitary Affairs:Sidebar.) Canada’s efforts at compromise failed when Pres. George W. Bush launched a military strike against Iraq without UN authorization. (See United Nations:Special Report.) Canada continued to maintain a small force of ships and airplanes in the Persian Gulf, however, as part of the ongoing international campaign against terrorism.

Canada’s doubts about the wisdom of President Bush’s action led to critical comments, made both privately and publicly, from Canadians. On April 13 an announcement was made that President Bush would postpone a visit to Ottawa planned for May 5. Cool personal relations between Bush and Chrétien were believed to have been a factor in the decision. Manley, the member of Chrétien’s cabinet most sympathetic to the U.S., issued a statement acknowledging Canada’s long friendship with its neighbour in spite of differences over Iraq.

Although Canadians questioned the justification for the attack on Iraq, they were prepared to see a military force sent to Afghanistan. A force of about 1,900 troops arrived in Kabul, the Afghan capital, in early August. The force took over from German soldiers and became part of a new UN structure intended to bring stability to Afghanistan. The Canadian mission would last one year.

Although Canada refused to take part in the Iraq war, it was willing to cooperate with the U.S. on defense measures. On May 29 the government announced that Canada would join talks on President Bush’s plan for a missile shield to defend North America against possible attacks by rogue states. Canada did not favour the deployment of weapons in outer space, however. During the summer Canadian and American negotiators began discussing the project. Canada wished to see the system under joint control, an arrangement used in the NORAD command, founded in 1957.

With such a massive flow of trade streaming between closely connected economies, it was inevitable that commercial disputes would emerge. U.S. duties on construction lumber from Canada, imposed in 2001, continued to have an impact on an export trade valued in Canada at Can$10 billion a year. Several trade-dispute panels, drawn from both the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, ruled on the case during the year. Their conclusions provided mixed signals. Provincial systems for granting timber licenses could, under certain conditions, represent a subsidy. The U.S. erred, however, in comparing cross-border timber prices. The dispute dragged on, damaging the forest economy in British Columbia, the largest timber-exporting province.

The U.S. ban on beef cattle from Canada after a BSE-infected cow was identified in Alberta was complicated by the action of Japan in denying entrance to American beef unless it could be clearly differentiated from Canadian. This distinction was virtually impossible, because animals traveled constantly back and forth across the North American border before going to market. Canadian safety regulations were changed to conform almost identically with those of the U.S., but the Japanese remained adamant. The beef ban was eased slightly on August 9, however, when U.S. sanctions on certain cuts of meat from animals under 30 months of age were lifted, and again in October, when sanctions on live animals under 30 months of age were lifted. In December, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture identified Canada as a possible source of a BSE-infected cow found in Washington state.